Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

It's technically (almost) correct, but obviously a pathological case for the fun of it. Moving the prepositions into their "standard" positions and adding the appropriate pronouns gives: For what [reason] did you bring that book about 'Down Under', out of which I don't want you to read to me, up [here]? That is, from back to front: for refers to what ...


8

In both cases, that is the That-Complementizer, a marker for a tensed Noun Clause, or Complement. In the first case, both that's are proper, since the repetition marks the two tensed complements that are conjoined by and, thus avoiding ambiguity, which is always a problem in a clause like this. In the second case, the construction so Adj that S/such a NP ...


6

The object of deny is any full reality. The word change is being used as a noun, and is the object of the preposition to, which indicates whose claim is being denied. (Note that this in not an instance of the infinitive to change.) So this: Classical ontology denies any full reality to change. Basically means: Classical ontology denies that change ...


6

It is not required to put a comma after a dependent clause, and some writers don't. Here are two examples from journalists writing in today's Guardian newspaper: Unless the public gets angry enough to force a rethink we had better hope that at least the computer stays risk-averse. Every time a "periodic" falls off the wagon they hit the ground ...


5

You could always break it up into separate sentences (if it's important enough to leave parentheses): It's widely known that the name "JavaScript" is trademarked by Oracle. The name was formerly a trademark of Sun (and before that a trademark of Netscape). If you don't like that, you might try putting it into a chronological list: It's widely known ...


5

It is okay, but can be potentially confusing/surprising for some people. In this particular sentence, you can do "I've been looking for this for a long time" or "For a long time, this is what I've been looking for".


5

First, it's not a hyphen; it's an em dash. We use it for: Aposiopesis: where a sentence is ended suddenly because the speaker is too emotional or can't think of the right way to express something or just— A stronger break than parentheses—inserting a clause in the middle of another though—but remaining with the same sentence. Showing a change of thought, ...


5

I'm not a native speaker, but the way I learnt it, it should be ".. if I went with him".


4

This sort of thing is surprisingly common in English. I couldn't decide if I had had a good time. This is what I've been looking for for a long time. (Your original example.) There's nothing wrong with these sentences, and they aren't grammatically incorrect. However, some people do find them infelicitous or awkward-sounding, so a simple rewording ...


4

A run-on sentence is one in which two or more independent clauses are joined without correct punctuation or without the use of a conjunction. The sentence in the example is not a run-on sentence. It has only one independent clause. The milk having soured is an introductory participial phrase and is correctly followed by a comma. Here's an example of a ...


4

As Phoog says, your terminology is a bit off, but your style looks absolutely fine to me, though it is hard to tell without proper content (or content that I can understand). While very complex sentences may be be easier to follow if the main clause comes first, your sentences are readable enough. Your clauses and phrases that precede the main clause are not ...


4

Second, it's not a sentence. What's the subject, what's the verb? It's a complex adjective phrase (i.e, a reduced disjoined restrictive relative clause), with a couple of descriptive similes attached, after being introduced by like, like most similes. The whole apparatus might well be what one would put after This thing here [pointing] is ...


4

You seem to be misunderstanding the makeup of the sentence. It is not made up of [subject] [was that] [independent clause] Rather, it is: [subject] [copula] [dependent clause] In other words, was that is not a constituent that belongs together. The verb ‘to be’ is a copula (also known as a ‘linking verb’) that basically functions like an equals sign: ...


3

It is correct, although this phrasing has a rather formal and old-fashioned sound. If you are looking for something that sounds more like casual spoken English, you might say: It is a subject I could talk about for hours.


3

What was formerly a trademark of Netscape? Sun? It is widely known that the name Javascript is a trademark now the property of Oracle but once owned by Sun (a trademark registered by Netscape). Oracle? It is widely known that the name Javascript is a trademark of Oracle (which is itself a trademark of Netscape, later owned by Sun). JavaScript? ...


3

In your examples either can be correct with some small changes ... a. The degree of dependence on nuclear energy varies from country to country. b. How dependent countries are on nuclear energy varies. a. How books are read varies from person to person. b. The way books are read varies from person to person.


3

The word "something" in this context refers to an action. Specifically, an action that the author is not permitting. Even more specifically, the author was praised for not permitting that action to occur.


3

I'll break it down to short sentences and rephrase: For simple examples, the overhead of concurrency is likely to be far larger than the actual computation. - Therefore, solving this example problem concurrently will have far worse performance than solving it with a single thread. - Multi-thread code is also more confusing to read than ...


3

A material holding in a company might mean one of two things:- It could be a shareholding that is sufficiently large as to allow the holder considerable influence over the company. If I owned 30% of the shares in ACME Plc, the management of that company would have to pay attention to my views on investment decisions, which they wouldn't have to do if I ...


3

'Available' is part of an adjectival clause 'that is available for all sectors'. The 'that is' is unnecessary and is omitted. 'Available' could be put in a different position e.g. 'There isn't sufficient available data, for all sectors, .....'. But it is quite normal for such a clause to be placed after the noun which it qualifies. Please note a couple of ...


3

In this type of sentence, where you have one adjective in front of the noun and another after the noun, the latter is used predicatively, which means it is connected both to the subject (like an adjective) and to the verb (like an adverb). It is similar to sentences with subject complements, such as enough details were available. The word available is also a ...


3

Switch "are" and "either" and it should be fine, because then you have three clauses that are all describe qualities of the book.


3

I've seen this expressed as "with over 80 combined years in marketing".


3

It's okay, but perhaps not what you mean. You perhaps mean: He would go to the theater if I went with him. The would clause is conditional, but the clause used to give the condition is not itself in the conditional mood. We might use your form if we had another reason for using would, like a double conditional: If it wasn't raining, I would go to ...


2

This usage of "that" is correct and belongs. "That" sets off a dependent clause but could be left off without ambiguity: He said we should go fishing. This basically means the same thing and the "that" is implicit: "we should go fishing" acts as a dependent clause, telling us what was said.


2

That sentence should be punctuated as follows: Simple examples are likely to have far more overhead than the work done, making the performance of the concurrent example far worse than just writing it single threaded, and also the code more confusing. Like that it makes a lot more sense; describing the problem, an outcome, and a further outcome.


2

Technically, the only thing missing is a comma: I'm not inclined to be a supporter of Newt Gingrich's, having served under him for four years and experienced personally his leadership. I found it lacking often times. However, it's still a bit awkward in places: a name ending in 'ch' looks strange and unpronounceable with a possessive tacked on, that ...


2

I don't rate any of the phrasing too highly, as it all seems a bit clumsy. Grammatically speaking there must be a comma after Gingrich's. Unless it's OP's transcription error, oftentimes should have been one word. I personally wouldn't use the possessive for Gingrich's. In such a convoluted sentence it's just one more distraction from clear ...


2

That can be omitted in most cases, particularly in speech, except at the beginning of a sentence or when the that clause comes after an abstract noun. So, we can say 'The fire chief said the fire departments were on the scene at around 8 a.m.', but we have to say 'That the fire departments were on the scene at around 8 a.m. is what what the fire chief ...


2

Let me try: It's widely known that the name "JavaScript" is trademarked by Oracle (formerly by Sun, and prior to that by Netscape). It's widely known that the name "JavaScript" (formerly a trademark of Sun, formerly a trademark of Netscape) is trademarked by Oracle



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible